IR 05000237/1980010
| ML17192A882 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1980 |
| From: | Brickley R, Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17192A881 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-80-10, 50-249-80-14, 50-254-80-14, 50-265-80-17, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8008140138 | |
| Download: ML17192A882 (4) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-237/80-10; 50-249/80-14; 50-254/80-14; 50-265/80-17 Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249; 50-254; 50-265 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. 0. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Licenses No. DPR-19; DPR-25 DPR-29; DPR-30 Facility Name:
Dresden Station, Units 2 and 3 Quad-Cities Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
EDS Nuclear Inc., San Francisco, CA Inspection Conducted:
Jun~ l&-19, 1980
~~'V~~
Inspectors~!. T. Yin R. H. Brickley, RIV Inspector Accompanying Personnel:
J. Bistulfi
,LTJ#L~h.~
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on June 18-19, 1980 (Reports No. 50-237/80-10; 50-249/80-14; 50-254/80-14; 50-265/80-17)
Areas Inspected:
Licensee actions relative to IE Bulletin No. 79-14 including general discussions on NRC requirements, work procedure review and review of analysis and calculation The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspector Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
800814 0 13~
DETAILS Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECo)
- M. Strait, Engineer, SNED EDS Nuclear Inc. (EDS)
irB. ~"'R. "kM. ;'\\J. *T. *R. Phipps, Manager, QA Hobgood, Supervising Engineer, QA Scholtens, Project Manager McCarthy, Manager, Piping Analysis Division Snyder, Section Manager, Piping Analysis Division Chan, Senior Engineer, EDD The inspector also had discussions with other EDS management and technical personnel during the course of the inspectio *Denotes some of those present at the exit intervie Functional or Program Areas Inspected In conjunction with RIII inspection at EDS on February 27-28, 1980 (Re'ports No. 50-237/80-05; 50-249/80-05; 50-254/80-05; 50-265/80-08) relative to licensee implementation of IEB 79-14 for Dresden 2 and 3, and Qua*d-Cities 1 and 2, the inspector selected additional categories of computation methods for review and evaluatio The findings were as follows: Review of EDS Evaluation Packages Dynamic Analyses EDS Calculation No. Ql-HPCI-OlC, dated June 16, 198 The inspector determined that the documentation of the formal system operability evaluation was inadequat In review the inspector noted the highest primary stresses at the 12" X 6" reducer to be approximately 44,300 psi for the SSE conditio The present EDS criteria of using OBE stress in comparison with 0.5Su is questionabl The criteria used to assess system operability will be discussed further during subsequent inspections/meeting.
Static Coefficient Analyses EDS Calculation No. D2-LPCI-03C, Revision The inspector commented that the present method of using the center of gravity of the piping system to select the horizontal static seismic coefficient to be used in the computation was questionabl This area will be reviewed further during a subsequent inspection.
- 2 - Blume Curves In review of various EDS calculations, it was noted that a number of new anchors, guides and single direction restraints were added to the systems to meet the Blume Curve requirement EDS Calculation Package Ql-HPCI-OlB Ql-HPCI-03B Ql-HPCI-04B D2-HDSP-01B D2-HPCI-06B and 07B Ql _.CCCD-OlB Ql-RHRS-02B Ql-RHRS-03B Ql-RHRS-09B Ql-RHRS-13B D3-LPCI-02B No. of Locations Required Additional Component Supports
8
5
7
4
7
The inspector determined, after review of the program and some of the package that no operability analyses had been performed for any of the above calculation.
Additional Documents Reviewed During the review of the EDS packages, the inspector also reviewed:
EDS Specification 0590-003-001, "Design of Pipe Support for the IEB 79-14 Effort", Revision 1, dated June 3, 198 Bechtel, Ann Arbor, "IEB 79-14 Field Inspection Procedure", Revision 2, dated August 27, 1979, Paragraph V,
~'ield Inspection CriLeLi No adverse comment was made by the inspector after the revie Relative to the modeling of the non-seismic portions of the pipe system into the seismic category system by using the equivalent spring stiffness and the inclusion of various component supports, the inspector had no question at this tim.
Items Requiring Followup Stress intensification factors not being considered in the system evaluation based on the Blume curves design. It was the EDS's assumption that these factors had been considered in the Blume Curve The actual bases of the curves was not available for the inspector's revie *
b.
Consideration of safety relief valve discharge forces in conjunction with the seismic loads in any of the past or present design require-ment Specific case reviewed was on Line No. Ql-RHRS-4858 B-The relief valve, No. RV-1-1001-165B, was installed on the shell side of the RHR Heat Exchanger, No. RHR 1-B-100 The design pressure of the pipe system was 450 psi, at temperature of 350° In review of the requirements for using the Blume Curves, it was noted that piping above elevation 579 ft. restraint load was to be multiplied by three to account for amplificatio Based on a review of the Quad-Cities reactor turbine building floor response spectra, the ratio of peak acceleration and acceleration in the flexible vibration range at a time period of 0.23 sec. factors of 3.5, 3.3, and 3.4 were obtained at El. 647.5', 666.S', and 690.5'.
The conservatism of using a factor of three was questionabl Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspectio The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio * The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herei The findings of this inspection will be discussed further with the CECo technical staf